Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fernandez v. Cox

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 24, 2017

KEVIN FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES GREG COX, et al, Defendants.

          PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MINUTES OF THE COURT

         MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:

         Before the court is plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation to requests for production of document responses (ECF No. 209). Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 229), and plaintiff replied (ECF No. 245). The parties also filed a status report (ECF No. 304) following the court's order to meet and confer on this motion.

         Plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation to requests for production of document responses (ECF No. 209) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are ordered to supplement their responses as set forth in the status report filed March 20, 2017 (ECF No. 304).

         Regarding the requests in dispute, the court hereby rules as follows:

         A. First Request for Production of documents

         Requests Nos. 25-33:

a. Requests Nos 25-29: Defendants produced grievance records: 2006-29- 79635, 2006-29-79634, 2006-29-77045, 2006-29-78471, and 2006-29-78209 (ECF No. 229). Defendants responded that they are not aware of further documents responsive to this request. Therefore, the motion to compel supplementation is denied as to these requests.
b. Requests Nos. 30-33: Grievance Nos. 2006-20-90495, 2006-29-84013, 2006-29-85113, and 2006-29-83749 were lodged after plaintiff left ESP on July 23, 2014 and do involve complaints of alleged food tampering at ESP from February 19 to July 23, 2014. Therefore, these requests are outside the scope of discovery, and defendants' objection to producing these requests is sustained. The motion to compel supplementation as to these requests is denied.

         Requests Nos. 41 & 45: These requests relate to surveillance video recordings for the time period plaintiff requested or any policies or procedures specific to video surveillance recording or retention. Defendants responded that they were not aware of any video surveillance because there were no video capabilities during the time frame of February 19 to July 23, 2014, as video cameras were only in the process of being installed. Additionally, there was no approved policy or procedure regarding the new video system at that time. Therefore, plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation as to these requests is denied.

         Requests Nos 48 & 49: Plaintiff requested personnel records of NDOC defendants, policies and procedures for maintaining these files, and personnel documentation detailing the reasons certain defendants are no longer employed by NDOC. Defendants objected on the basis that plaintiffs requests called for documents that are outside the scope of discovery and confidential and privileged documents. They also objected on the basis that plaintiffs request was overly broad and burdensome. Defendants' objection is sustained and plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation as to these requests is denied.

         Requests Nos. 56-58: Plaintiff requested documents which identify the inmates who were prescribed psychotropic medications in his housing units at ESP. Defendants objected on the basis that these requests exceeded the scope of discovery, called for confidential and privileged information, called for information that jeopardized the safety and security of the institution, and were unduly burdensome. Defendants' objection is sustained, and plaintiffs motion to compel supplementation as to these requests is denied.

         B. Third Request for Production of documents

         Request No. 1: Plaintiff requested production of an internal memorandum regarding plaintiffs urinalysis test. Defendants objected on the basis of privilege, as the internal memorandum is protected by executive privilege as it discusses plaintiffs crime, sentence, institutional history, inter-state transfer, security threat group issues, and complaints about staff drugging his food. Defendants contend the document is deliberative as it reflects on plaintiffs pre-decisional custody status within the NDOC. Defendants further contend that disclosure of this memorandum inhibits the prison system from performing a vital function, inmate management, as it would discourage candid discussion and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.